Unpopular Opinions You Hold

[SouthStandUpperTier]

6 minutes ago, Jattdogg said:

Toilet paper is not a good option for wiping your poo hole. Much better to use a bidet or toilet seat bidet to get  a cleaner and more refreshing finish job on your rim. 

 

Not sure if it's really unpopular but given how people went bog roll crazy a few months ago it might be.

It might not be the best option, but toilet paper is still a good option. Especially compared to something like a hedgehog, or your wife's knickers, for example. It's all relative.

[Facecloth]

1 minute ago, SouthStandUpperTier said:

It might not be the best option, but toilet paper is still a good option. Especially compared to something like a hedgehog, or your wife's knickers, for example. It's all relative.

I always use a cactus 🌵 

[worthosoriginals]

4 minutes ago, SouthStandUpperTier said:

It might not be the best option, but toilet paper is still a good option. Especially compared to something like a hedgehog, or your wife's knickers, for example. It's all relative.

jeyes fluid and a kitten gets it super clean for me

[Benguin]

3 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Interesting.

 

I would say the inference of lesser intelligence as well as immorality if one doesn't believe in God is rather obvious there.

Care to explain? You are doing a classic shift of what the arguments actually are. Nowhere did I say atheists are immoral but rather they can't justify Why they have objective morals in their worldview. The arguments actually does the opposite of what you are saying, it's pointing out that clearly they have morals. 

 

I am inferring that given that many people do not live according to their worldview, this is by no means saying they are not intelligent, I actually described it in my post as suppression of the truth. 

 

Question, if you had absolute proof of the Christian worldview, would you become a Christian? My contention is that for many, it is volitional reasons rather than intellectual reasons that people aren't Christians. Many Christians leave the faith, not because of some new evidence but because they want to sin. 

[purpleronnie]

42 minutes ago, Jattdogg said:

Toilet paper is not a good option for wiping your poo hole. Much better to use a bidet or toilet seat bidet to get  a cleaner and more refreshing finish job on your rim. 

 

Not sure if it's really unpopular but given how people went bog roll crazy a few months ago it might be.

I actually laughed at 'poo hole'.

 

I'm a child.

[Benguin]

11 hours ago, leicsmac said:

TBH you're on to something here, mon ami.

 

When it comes to historical records and information, quite often we have no way of independently verifying what one person or another may have written about events.

 

So yes, while not disregarding what we know, we do have to accept that at the very least it might not be 100% true/accurate and be ready to change worldviews accordingly.

I'm not sure I follow your last point, how are you able to retain most of your historical knowledge? As stated, historians have been able to show that the points I have made about the life of Jesus are better attested in historical documents, textual criticism and many more methods, than so many other prominent historical figures. To disregard these, is to disregard a vast preportion of known history. 

 

Someone also mentioned about stories long before Jesus, sharing similarities. Is it not a bit of a contradiction to ignore the overwhelming historical evidence of jesus but happily accept the fairly poor historical evidence of these other Messiahs? 

[The Bear]

I'm still waiting for those consensus of historical accounts all agreeing what Jesus said and did. 

[The Bear]

56 minutes ago, Jattdogg said:

Toilet paper is not a good option for wiping your poo hole. Much better to use a bidet or toilet seat bidet to get  a cleaner and more refreshing finish job on your rim. 

 

Not sure if it's really unpopular but given how people went bog roll crazy a few months ago it might be.

I've always been curious as I've never used one. I imagine it being really cold water and you hitting the ceiling in shock. 

[Benguin]

4 minutes ago, The Bear said:

I'm still waiting for those consensus of historical accounts all agreeing what Jesus said and did. 

Feel free to Google historicity of Jesus, alternatively, pm your address, happy to buy you a book. 

[The Bear]

I have proof. Google it. 

 

Good one. 

[leicsmac]

19 minutes ago, Benguin said:

Care to explain? You are doing a classic shift of what the arguments actually are. Nowhere did I say atheists are immoral but rather they can't justify Why they have objective morals in their worldview. The arguments actually does the opposite of what you are saying, it's pointing out that clearly they have morals. 

 

I am inferring that given that many people do not live according to their worldview, this is by no means saying they are not intelligent, I actually described it in my post as suppression of the truth. 

 

Question, if you had absolute proof of the Christian worldview, would you become a Christian? My contention is that for many, it is volitional reasons rather than intellectual reasons that people aren't Christians. Many Christians leave the faith, not because of some new evidence but because they want to sin. 

Well, personally I thought that "To deny God is to deny that objective moral values and duties exist. One has to place themselves in a position that murdering and raping babies, though harmful to our survival is not objectively immoral" was a judgement on the moral makeup of those who don't believe specifically in the Christian god and "One has to surrender knowledge to have an athiestic worldview" implied that those who don't believe have inherently more limited knowledge than those that do, but thank you for clarifying the points as you did above.

 

And to answer the question, if I had irrefutable empirical evidence of a deity existing in the manner that one religion out of many thousands depicts, then yes, I'd believe that it existed, but I certainly wouldn't be sure if I'd be willing to thank and/or pay homage to such a being. And I think it's highly judgemental (whatever happened to leaving the judging to the man upstairs?) to suggest that people who want to leave the faith just do it because they want to do thing deemed "sinful" (whatever that means).

 

11 minutes ago, Benguin said:

I'm not sure I follow your last point, how are you able to retain most of your historical knowledge? As stated, historians have been able to show that the points I have made about the life of Jesus are better attested in historical documents, textual criticism and many more methods, than so many other prominent historical figures. To disregard these, is to disregard a vast preportion of known history. 

 

Someone also mentioned about stories long before Jesus, sharing similarities. Is it not a bit of a contradiction to ignore the overwhelming historical evidence of jesus but happily accept the fairly poor historical evidence of these other Messiahs? 

You're not, that's exactly my point.

 

Historical records may well not be reliable and as such can't really be used to build dogmatic "facts" on.

[Benguin]

Just now, The Bear said:

I have proof. Google it. 

 

Good one. 

What are you looking for specifically? I can try and explain how the historians have assertained the historical facts surrounding Jesus but I feel this is better achieved by listening to the experts, after all I'm not a historian. 

 

Do you not believe Jesus existed? Was crucified? was buried in the tomb of Joseph of arimethea? the tomb was found empty? or that several individuals and groups claimed to see Jesus risen?Or all of them? Perhaps if I can understand which historical facts you dispute, I can show you why I think they are true. 

[Facecloth]

26 minutes ago, Benguin said:

Care to explain? You are doing a classic shift of what the arguments actually are. Nowhere did I say atheists are immoral but rather they can't justify Why they have objective morals in their worldview. The arguments actually does the opposite of what you are saying, it's pointing out that clearly they have morals. 

 

I am inferring that given that many people do not live according to their worldview, this is by no means saying they are not intelligent, I actually described it in my post as suppression of the truth. 

 

Question, if you had absolute proof of the Christian worldview, would you become a Christian? My contention is that for many, it is volitional reasons rather than intellectual reasons that people aren't Christians. Many Christians leave the faith, not because of some new evidence but because they want to sin. 

Woah, so hang on. You're not saying I'm immortal because I'm an athiest, just that I can't justify it because I don't believe in God? I find that extremely insulting.

 

Many many athiest have good morals, and do good in the world, they just don't have a magic man in the sky telling them they should be good, they just know they should be because its, you know, the right thing. I was brought up as Methodist. I didn't stop going church because I wanted to sin, I stopped because I had a realisation its all bullshit (no offence meant). The Christian moral code isn't the only one people should live by, and although I may have sinned in some ways in your eyes, I'm in no way a bad person. I've never stole, murdered or raped. I've never cheated on a partner. I give to charity, I help others where I can. I have had sex outside marriage but that doesn't hurt anybody (although I'm not saying everyone enjoyed it😂), and on the other hand I'm tolerant of gay people and believe in gay marriage and opposing those things does hurt people. So tell me, who's moral code fairer? Who's affects peoples lives in a less positive way? Mine or a Christian?

 

Oh and I have eaten shrimp, but i guess you have too because people like eating shrimp so we'll ignore that rule.

 

BTW I'm fine with anyone following whatever religion they want, but to quote Jim Jefferies "Nobody has ever died in the name of Atheism. Nobody has ever cut into human flesh, looked down camera and shouted "in the name of nothing!""

[Benguin]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

Well, personally I thought that "To deny God is to deny that objective moral values and duties exist. One has to place themselves in a position that murdering and raping babies, though harmful to our survival is not objectively immoral" was a judgement on the moral makeup of those who don't believe specifically in the Christian god and "One has to surrender knowledge to have an athiestic worldview" implied that those who don't believe have inherently more limited knowledge than those that do, but thank you for clarifying the points as you did above.

 

And to answer the question, if I had irrefutable empirical evidence of a deity existing in the manner that one religion out of many thousands depicts, then yes, I'd believe that it existed, but I certainly wouldn't be sure if I'd be willing to thank and/or pay homage to such a being. And I think it's highly judgemental (whatever happened to leaving the judging to the man upstairs?) to suggest that people who want to leave the faith just do it because they want to do thing deemed "sinful" (whatever that means).

 

You're not, that's exactly my point.

 

Historical records may well not be reliable and as such can't really be used to build dogmatic "facts" on.

OK on the last point I think we agree then. I'm happy to with historians methods and consider these facts, but as said, there is no definitive scientific proof of the vast majority of History. 

 

On the first point you yourself have admitted that objective morals do not exist and absolute truths do not exist, so I'm not sure what you are getting at here. I think both of these exist and in my experience atheists and Christians alike live their lives as if they do, so the argument is not to assert an atheist is immoral or doesn't know anything but rather to point out that they are moral and they do know things thereby making their worldview incompatible with their lives. 

 

If you had irrefutable evidence but did not follow, this illustrates the hypothesis that most people's view on this is volitional and not intellectual. Though in your case I'm by no means inferring I know which one it is. 

 

 

[The Bear]

9 minutes ago, Benguin said:

What are you looking for specifically? I can try and explain how the historians have assertained the historical facts surrounding Jesus but I feel this is better achieved by listening to the experts, after all I'm not a historian. 

 

Do you not believe Jesus existed? Was crucified? was buried in the tomb of Joseph of arimethea? the tomb was found empty? or that several individuals and groups claimed to see Jesus risen?Or all of them? Perhaps if I can understand which historical facts you dispute, I can show you why I think they are true. 

If you've got a few peer reviewed journals by professors of history then that'd be swell. 

[Benguin]

2 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

Woah, so hang on. You're not saying I'm immortal because I'm an athiest, just that I can't justify it because I don't believe in God? I find that extremely insulting.

 

Many many athiest have good morals, and do good in the world, they just don't have a magic man in the sky telling them they should be good, they just know they should be because its, you know, the right thing. I was brought up as Methodist. I didn't stop going church because I wanted to sin, I stopped because I had a realisation its all bullshit (no offence meant). The Christian moral code isn't the only one people should live by, and although I may have sinned in some ways in your eyes, I'm in no way a bad person. I've never stole, murdered or raped. I've never cheated on a partner. I give to charity, I help others where I can. I have had sex outside marriage but that doesn't hurt anybody (although I'm not saying everyone enjoyed it😂), and on the other hand I'm tolerant of gay people and believe in gay marriage and opposing those things does hurt people. So tell me, who's moral code fairer? Who's affects peoples lives in a less positive way? Mine or a Christian?

 

Oh and I have eaten shrimp, but i guess you have too because people like eating shrimp so we'll ignore that rule.

 

BTW I'm fine with anyone following whatever religion they want, but to quote Jim Jefferies "Nobody has ever died in the name of Atheism. Nobody has ever cut into human flesh, looked down camera and shouted "in the name of nothing!""

No this is not what I'm saying at all. Let me post a good video by the cosmic skeptic (he's a prominent atheist YouTube) he deals with this quite nicely in the first part of the video 

 

 

[Facecloth]

Just now, Benguin said:

No this is not what I'm saying at all. Let me post a good video by the cosmic skeptic (he's a prominent atheist YouTube) he deals with this quite nicely in the first part of the video 

 

 

I'll watch after the game if thats ok

[Benguin]

Just now, The Bear said:

If you've got a few peer reviewed journals by professors of history then that'd be swell. 

Great start with Bart Erhman, he's an atheist so good to start with someone who shares.your worldview. As said, feel free to PM address happy to buy you a book. 

[The Bear]

5 minutes ago, Benguin said:

Great start with Bart Erhman, he's an atheist so good to start with someone who shares.your worldview. As said, feel free to PM address happy to buy you a book. 

Looks like he thought Jesus was just a normal Jewish man preaching the end of the world. So like I thought, just some cult leader. 

[Benguin]

1 minute ago, The Bear said:

Looks like he thought Jesus was just a normal Jewish man preaching the end of the world. So like I thought, just some cult leader. 

He agrees with the facts you are asking me to prove though. That Jesus existed, that he was crucified, that he was buried in the tomb of Joseph of arimethea, that the tomb was found empty and that several individuals and groups claimed to see the risen Christ. I have never claimed any additional historical facts to those. 

[Milo]

Do we not have a 'Religions' thread? 

[The Bear]

1 minute ago, Benguin said:

He agrees with the facts you are asking me to prove though. That Jesus existed, that he was crucified, that he was buried in the tomb of Joseph of arimethea, that the tomb was found empty and that several individuals and groups claimed to see the risen Christ. I have never claimed any additional historical facts to those. 

Is it relevant that one bloke agrees? As I've said before the plural of anecdote isn't evidence. 

[Benguin]

Just now, The Bear said:

Is it relevant that one bloke agrees? As I've said before the plural of anecdote isn't evidence. 

I'm not sure what else I can say I'm afraid. We know things from history because historians have studied documents, using a wide array of methods. Scholars aren't debating the facts I've laid out but instead what the explanation is for them. 

 

As I've already said, if you are not willing to follow the scholarly work on the historicity of Jesus, then you shouldn't follow any historical figure that is know through documents rather than physical evidence. And if that's your burden of proof for history then this is an unnecessary and circular debate. 

[Facecloth]

17 minutes ago, Benguin said:

No this is not what I'm saying at all. Let me post a good video by the cosmic skeptic (he's a prominent atheist YouTube) he deals with this quite nicely in the first part of the video 

 

 

 

15 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

I'll watch after the game if thats ok

Actually no, forgot the video, don't use others to explain yourself. You said you didn't think athiest were immoral, just they couldn't justify their morals. To me that clearly thinks you mean although I can still be a good person with good morals, without God to back it up, I have no justification. 

[The Bear]

Agreed. I think it's time we changed the subject.